This Time and Every Time It"s Personal

In case you hadn't noticed this blog is my entirely personal and eclectic view of the world. Organisations I belong to disown me and every word of this thing - long before the cock crows. I blog what I want and I blogit when when I want. I rarely delete comments and will generally carry corrections and observations prominently on request. This time, and every time ... it's personal.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

What's the issue? Rochdale's dirty Lib Dem regime has it seems "reformed" an existing policy or practice - whether introduced under the Paul Rowen-led Lib Dem council up to May 2005 or the surprise surprise Lab-Con pact for the rest of the year. But it did start in 2005. I'll find out.

That practice being that the Council collects water rates on behalf of United Utilities and gets a slice, or a splash of the proceeds.

As I understand it from the Middleton Guardian the current Centrefold-led crew, still directed by Smith C, Smith N and Rowen P, not to mention Hennigan D, have taken things a step further through Rochdale Boroughwide Housing which they control. With the pound signs lighting up in their wild staring eyes these Lib Dems have it seems BOUGHT UP any and all the Water Rates debt.

By definition the current debt book, plus the rump of the hard-to-collect super-poor. With an appropriately named ex-soldier (right) showing just how they are plumbing the depths with this anti-social and money-grubbing escalation.

They are expecting to MAKE A MILLION for the coffers by collecting this debt. And, although there was never an eviction under the old service level agreement - collecting on commission - the brave new world of Centre-fold led Lib Dems is it seems determined to escalate to the eviction option this time.

A small to middling commercial debt-collection matter with United Utilities not having a snowball's chance in Animal Farm of achieving an eviction, has been transformed into a means of turning poverty in Rochdale into homelessness in Rochdale.

And interestingly enough if and when they do this they'll be creating an extraordinarily expensive problem for a different cost centre/profit centre. This time direct within the Town Hall instead of arms lengt at RBH. Yes, that's right, they'll have to stick any evicted tenants into Bed and Breakfasts or other emergency accommodation at huge expense to other Council Tax payers. Brilliant! Top stuff from the Centrefold Party.

To help this along they've chosen someone with a criminal record as their first victim. But sadly not the career criminal Sir Cyril Smith MBE. One way or another he seems to be comfortably able to pay his bills. Even donate to his party.

1. If this is not a ‘new’ policy as Councillor Wera Hobhouse claims, then why has Paul Rowen, who was leader of the Council when Wera says it was passed in 2005, said he remembers that a guarantee was given that no one would be evicted for water debt?2. Similarly, why was the 2008 meeting held in private if, as Wera wrongly claims, the Lib Dems were only reaffirming an existing policy?3. Why have they previously failed in court to obtain an eviction? Is it because the 2005 policy never mentioned ‘eviction’?4. If the council are collecting on behalf of United Utilities, why are United Utilities informing tenants that they are no longer customers of United Utilities?5. If the Council are collecting on behalf of United Utilities, why are unpaid water bills not sent back to United Utilities for Enforcement?6. And why are they paying United Utilities up front (with tax payers’ money) for a debt they have yet to collect?7. Why can a council tenant not pay United Utilities by direct debit?8. And why are you continuing to criticise Councillor Lambert for “causing tenants to be concerned”? It’s the Lib Dems who have allowed the council to threaten tenants with eviction.9. Why did the Lib Dems want to keep this policy secret, even from members of their own group?10. Could she also please explain what the “extensive support” is that the Cabinet Member for Housing claims is offered to people struggling to pay their water rates? Does it compare to the support offered by the United Utilities Trust Fund, which has been taken away now that the council has bought the debt?11. Finally, why are you confusing tenants by claiming they owe rent arrears when it is a water rates debt they owe?

Heywood Parish Priest, who married Dave Drunkagain at his church, back in the day, that's married to someone else of course, is musing on the bullock-brained Sheikh-down worker Cllr Elwyn Watkins' suggestion that HPP asks a question at the next Council meeting. here's his manifesto ...

I am not bothered, in a sense, who started the policy. What matters is that, whether they invented it or merely restated it, it is now clearly and unambiguously the policy of this administration that the council will, through RBH, evict any of its own tenants who fall behind in their payments for charges owed to United Utilities.And their attempt to justify the policy on the grounds that the first person they are trying to evict has a criminal conviction is shameless.

Amen.

UPDATE Wed 11:45: Headline altered and first deck of text removed on request from Father Paul Daly who comments robustly and continuously as "Heywood Parish Priest". He doesn't he says think Rochdale Lib Dems are "bastards" or any such disrespectful term. They are all god's children after all. Apart perhaps from those on the dark side.

What are you on about you daft twat? You are barred. But just to help you sleep at night and as a final goodbye present :

1. Bird Watcher was and is a transparantly obvious almost theatrical, yeah make that definitely theatrical, example of sock puppeting by me. You would have had to be a senseless humourless muppet to miss that.

Bringing it up as an accusation really just proves what a very low level you are operating at.

LDV certainly must have known about it as it was happening.

And Bird Watcher did not have a life beyond that little flutter. Like a May Fly she came and went in a day.

I complained about the comment moderation as one of only a small number of people i.e. the author and the moderator(s) that knew about the post. Deliberate. Humourous. Obvious.

3. Abdul's Revenge has nothing whatsoever to do with me. I have a sneaking suspicion who it might be. But in fact there are perhaps as many as half a dozen different people from Rochdale - not counting the "never anonymous" liar Hennigan and his lying cheating mate Power. These people are using consistent aliases and also contributing.

My only concern about them is that they don't get actionable or fall into any -isms and phobias. They comment on topic. Here and elsewhere. They are audience participation. They sometimes add value and move stories on. They are not badly behaved guests. Or get their wings clipped every now and then. They are not overstaying their welcome.

4. The other one, can't even remember what it was? ... someone else I think. Though if it were harmless, humourous, good natured, texture or grain rather than substance, there is a very small chance it was indeed me.

What Guido and Andrew Gilligan and Iain Dale's sockpuppets have been found doing is quite different.

Not for humour or any other acceptable reason. Hidden attempts at either hatefully attacking people they don't like or in attempts to create third parties who take their side when their nonsense is ripped to be.

And what you do is just as bad. Nihilistic. Off topic. Repetitive. Defamatory. Humourless. Wrong headed. Illogical. Etc. Etc. Etc.

"Bird Watcher", yes. In a blooming strand about the Lib Dems changing their birdie logo. Humourous and harmless.

Even purists in this matter such as Tim "Manic" Ireland at Bloggerheads.com draw a distinction between substantive, hateful, self-aggrandising, political etc points and just moving the debate on.

In fact when Tim Ireland denies charges of sock puppeting against him AFAICR he tends to qualify denials of ever doing it in ways that suggest that for the odd harmless "moving on", joke or even say some light touch intervening to stop some flame war ... it's OK.

That's certainly my view. So yes. Very occasional use of names other than my own is allowed in my personal blog morality.

But not anonymous defamation, -isms, vicious attacks, self aggrandisement, mythical third parties in support etc.

Obviously as you may know most bloggers have the means to identify who is on their blogs at any time and their route through the pages and with reasonable certainty who is posting what, even if they are trying it on as anonymous.

There is therefore no future in pretending to be someone else in any serious matter. Even web 2.0 "experts" like Guido, Gilligan, Dale, Shapps (Tory idiot), and so on get caught at it. Even some say Dizzy.

Perhaps you could get your own blog and make up your own rules for how you will behave? And how you will require or expect others to behave? And what will and will not be covered as subjects?

Give up this cloak and dagger stuff for goodness sake. Just now you don't have the good sense or sense of humour to understand anything that is going on at all. And we're still waiting for your photoshop homework. Go forth and get yourself up to speed before you come back. And courage mon brave. Do come back with more purpose and let's hope with something more than irresponsible ASB.

Right, twat, you are determined to prove how ridiculously anal and stupid you are. Is that it? Though (you think) under cover of anonymity.

The Bird Watcher conceit was used by me before the extraordinarily clumsy Lawrence Hill photoshoppery story.

On 07 April 007, as well as on 26 April 007. The first instance, also subject of theatrical grandstanding by your truly was about the logo.

You cannot even manage a google or blogger blog search without messing up.

You continue to make a gross category error in comparing this with the likes of your disruptive childish self. Or with the right wingers like Guido, Gilligan (no) and so on caught making serious attempts to pass themselves off as others.

Guido accuses his own commenters of being window lickers!! Most of us believe that he regularly contributes window licking comments to his own blog.

And he is foolish enough to do so on Tory Troll also.

Gilligan has been caught by textual analysis. Using the same idiosyncratic phrases under different identities.

You are a twat and were called a twat by me not for accusing me of ever having used a nom de plume in the blogosphere. You were called a twat as a simple statement of fact, for your lack of understanding, proportion, GSOH, categories, and so on.

Whether you are Rob Addlard or not you need to grow up and get a life. I'll be running some stories about Addlard over the next day or two as it goes. And this might be the right time for you to reveal exactly who you are and start posting using your true identity.

And preferably sorting out your illogical, humourless and to be blunt shit attitude.

And if you are Addlard - your string arrangements are boring and whiney. And you've yet your band's web domain lapse you utter muppet.